Table 1 Indicative examples of the influence of electric field stimulation in various human cell types in vitro and in vivo
From: Electric field stimulation for tissue engineering applications
Cell type | Power Supply | Electric Field Strength (V/cm) | Stimulation Duration (h) | Preferred Direction | Major Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chondrocytes | DC, Keithley Instruments (USA) | 6 | 3 | Bidirectional (dependent on passage of cells) | EF directed migration was influenced by passage [27] |
Keratinocytes | DC & AC PASCO Scientific (USA) | 0.4 at 1.6 or 160 Hz (AC) / 1 (DC) | 1 | Cathode | Verification of electromechanical model for migration [93] |
Mammary epithelial cells | DC, Pine (USA) | 0.13–1.0 | 6 | Anode | Clustered cells were more sensitive to alignment, but migrated slower than isolated cells [83] |
Osteoblasts | DC, Biometra (Germany) | 0.15–0.45 | 7 | Anode | Upregulation of ion channel gene, associating Ca2+ with migration speed [96] |
Peripheral blood lymphocytes | DC, Agilent Technologies (USA) | 0.15–2 | 0.5–2.0 | Cathode | Directed migration in vitro and in vivo and activated intracellular kinase pathways [37] |
Neuroblastoma cells | DC, AMPI (Israel) | 0.045–4.5 | 4 | Anode | Enhancement of cell mobility [61] |
Bone marrow stem cells | DC, Glassman FC (USA) | 0.2–5 | 15 | Cathode | Donor did not influence migration direction and morphological changes but affected response time to EF, migration speed and cell viability [22] |